JTGuevara.9018

> @"God.2708" said: > > @"JTGuevara.9018" said: > > > @"God.2708" said: > > > > @"JTGuevara.9018" said: > > > > @"subversiontwo.7501" > > > > > > > > First off, I will just address your name. You have a massive post, so I will just address it in general. As far as my argument being "baffling", it is simple enough to me. Maybe I should reiterate it? Here it is. I'm just going to be transparent about this. > > > > > > > > Guilds should not be given any more power in this game. A potential influx of guilds aided by the implementation of an alliance system will not magically fix WvW, specially at this point. The fact that PUGs are toxic and mean at times are _not_ a viable argument for guilds taking control for this game mode. Period. End of. Guilds are _not_ "the server", as you claim, they are _a part_ of the server, they are _in_ the server. Guilds are no more important than PUGs and everyone else. That is ALL that I have said. > > > > > > > > I really cannot make this any more clearer than that. > > > > > > I don't think you understand what power actually is, or how it manifests itself in something like WvW. Else you would not be speaking nonsense like you are. > > > > My apologies! Might you explain to the rest of us what power is then if what you think I say is "nonsense"? I'll be waiting. > > > > @"getalifeturd.8139" > > > > It is massive posts like these that just drive the point home for me that any sort of guild 'alliance' system is doomed to fail. All this drama, politicking and backstabbing...for what? Stroking your e-stick to compensate for what you don't have? Doing it just for kicks? Tryharding in this manner is just sad and just drives people away from playing this game. And overall, these situations demonstrate how flawed and broken the server tier system actually is. If ya ask me, honestly, nothing short of unifying all the servers and implementing a WvW mega server with a 3-way faction system will actually address population in any meaningful way. Yes, I know _some_ people will _balk_ at this suggestion, but I honestly see no other way. With the server links that we have, we basically are halfway there. (8 to 4 tiers) However, I see that people are either too loyal to either their guild or their server (aka "guild pride" and "server pride" respectively) to actually accept meaningful changes to WvW. > > > > Power is top down. What something has to exert control on its surroundings by force or tools that grant it said control. If you join my guild I can kick you. > > What guilds have that you are describing is authority. That is bottom up. Authority is control gifted from below, and it can be rescinded at anytime by those beneath it. > > WvW runs off of authority because there doesn't exist any tools of power. I can't kick anyone off my server, at best I can annoy/troll them which could possibly result in Anet using their power on me to get me removed, so is not very effective. Guilds are given that authority by subsections of the WvW populace for a variety of reasons. Some because they like the commander's attitude, some because they like to PPT, some because they like to troll. The point of alliances is to create a system that lets guilds expand their authority and compete with one another. (IE. a guild that caters to PUGs and gets them to work with it will see more success than one that actively trolls them, regardless of the guilds capabilities when actually playing) > > This is why what you are saying is nonsense. Guilds aren't separate entities from PUGs. They are PUGs that have gotten together and agreed on a mutual idea. (It should go without saying that a mode about war would value coordination and cooperation, a topic many PUGs seem to fail to grasp.) You can't get rid of that 'power' because it isn't power, it's authority. Nor can guilds gain 'control' of the mode through alliances. If they have control it is through the collective cooperation of a very large number of people. The only way to get rid of it would be to randomly match people and not let them talk to each other so they can't coordinate. Which, forgive me for saying, sounds kitten awful. > > The largest detriment to the mode at the current moment is the fact that Anet makes it actively difficult for servers to gain a consistent identity. Identity and culture create a lasting impact, and are important to a long term mode like WvW. You can take guilds out of Guild Wars 2 but you can't take it out of war. > > Also that guy was copypasta ing. > ...no... Power is the possession of authority. Guilds _do_ have power, granted by subsections of the WvW community as you say, that's completely fine. However, they just don't have _absolute_ power. I'm guessing this is something you want aka. "I can't kick anyone off my server". In that case, nope...sorry!

Yes! Finally someone said it! The lighting in this game is very oppressing at times. My eyes get tired after a while. The flashiness in some of these skins is _so_ gaudy and over the top, it's ridiculous. Ad Infinitum is the most obnoxious and my most _hated_ back item in this game.

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"JTGuevara.9018" said: > > > @"God.2708" said: > > > > @"JTGuevara.9018" said: > > > > @"subversiontwo.7501" > > > > > > > > First off, I will just address your name. You have a massive post, so I will just address it in general. As far as my argument being "baffling", it is simple enough to me. Maybe I should reiterate it? Here it is. I'm just going to be transparent about this. > > > > > > > > Guilds should not be given any more power in this game. A potential influx of guilds aided by the implementation of an alliance system will not magically fix WvW, specially at this point. The fact that PUGs are toxic and mean at times are _not_ a viable argument for guilds taking control for this game mode. Period. End of. Guilds are _not_ "the server", as you claim, they are _a part_ of the server, they are _in_ the server. Guilds are no more important than PUGs and everyone else. That is ALL that I have said. > > > > > > > > I really cannot make this any more clearer than that. > > > > > > I don't think you understand what power actually is, or how it manifests itself in something like WvW. Else you would not be speaking nonsense like you are. > > > > My apologies! Might you explain to the rest of us what power is then if what you think I say is "nonsense"? I'll be waiting. > > > > @"getalifeturd.8139" > > > > It is massive posts like these that just drive the point home for me that any sort of guild 'alliance' system is doomed to fail. All this drama, politicking and backstabbing...for what? Stroking your e-stick to compensate for what you don't have? Doing it just for kicks? Tryharding in this manner is just sad and just drives people away from playing this game. And overall, these situations demonstrate how flawed and broken the server tier system actually is. If ya ask me, honestly, nothing short of unifying all the servers and implementing a WvW mega server with a 3-way faction system will actually address population in any meaningful way. Yes, I know _some_ people will _balk_ at this suggestion, but I honestly see no other way. With the server links that we have, we basically are halfway there. (8 to 4 tiers) However, I see that people are either too loyal to either their guild or their server (aka "guild pride" and "server pride" respectively) to actually accept meaningful changes to WvW. > > > > > > So I would assume based on the text in your posts that you feel as if ‘guilds’ have no true use in the game. I would also guess you don’t use any VOIP. > > And loyalty to a server or guild is bad. > > So... who generally tags up on your server? > > I’ll give you a hint: it’s normally a guild leader. Or a senior member of a guild. > > Many Commanders tag up because they enjoy those people In their guild and trust those members to work with them to succeed. Often the open up to others, work on training them. > > Of course there are buttheads out there. > > Your proposal would effectively eliminate ANY ability to consistently work with people you know. > > You want EoTM back? That exists currently: megaservered WvW. And it was a fail. There was no reason to actually engage the other ‘factions’ unless you were wanting to troll them. > > It was a huge circle**** that guilds were established that ran on all three colors and actively avoided each other. > On the contrary. I am in a guild and I do use VOIP. Also, in what way does my suggestion eliminate any ability to work together consistently? If anything, it _enhances_ it. Guilds would more easily meet each other since they don't need to pay an arm and a leg in cross-server transfers. They easily can all meet up on the same world. As far as cross-faction guilds go aka. "all three colors", as you say, realistically the only way I can think of to oppose that is through implementing some sort of blacklisting system as a check and balance against that, although even that can be abused. And EOTM did _not_ fail because the megaserver system is bad, it failed because of two reasons: the map, and the implementation of pips. There is a reason that most people in WvW keep to Alpine BLs and Eternal BG and reject EOTM, Obsidian Sanctum. The maps suck! ANet also royally messed up the rewards between EOTM and general WvW back then.

> @"God.2708" said: > > @"JTGuevara.9018" said: > > @"subversiontwo.7501" > > > > First off, I will just address your name. You have a massive post, so I will just address it in general. As far as my argument being "baffling", it is simple enough to me. Maybe I should reiterate it? Here it is. I'm just going to be transparent about this. > > > > Guilds should not be given any more power in this game. A potential influx of guilds aided by the implementation of an alliance system will not magically fix WvW, specially at this point. The fact that PUGs are toxic and mean at times are _not_ a viable argument for guilds taking control for this game mode. Period. End of. Guilds are _not_ "the server", as you claim, they are _a part_ of the server, they are _in_ the server. Guilds are no more important than PUGs and everyone else. That is ALL that I have said. > > > > I really cannot make this any more clearer than that. > > I don't think you understand what power actually is, or how it manifests itself in something like WvW. Else you would not be speaking nonsense like you are. My apologies! Might you explain to the rest of us what power is then if what you think I say is "nonsense"? I'll be waiting. @"getalifeturd.8139" It is massive posts like these that just drive the point home for me that any sort of guild 'alliance' system is doomed to fail. All this drama, politicking and backstabbing...for what? Stroking your e-stick to compensate for what you don't have? Doing it just for kicks? Tryharding in this manner is just sad and just drives people away from playing this game. And overall, these situations demonstrate how flawed and broken the server tier system actually is. If ya ask me, honestly, nothing short of unifying all the servers and implementing a WvW mega server with a 3-way faction system will actually address population in any meaningful way. Yes, I know _some_ people will _balk_ at this suggestion, but I honestly see no other way. With the server links that we have, we basically are halfway there. (8 to 4 tiers) However, I see that people are either too loyal to either their guild or their server (aka "guild pride" and "server pride" respectively) to actually accept meaningful changes to WvW.

@"subversiontwo.7501" First off, I will just address your name. You have a massive post, so I will just address it in general. As far as my argument being "baffling", it is simple enough to me. Maybe I should reiterate it? Here it is. I'm just going to be transparent about this. Guilds should not be given any more power in this game. A potential influx of guilds aided by the implementation of an alliance system will not magically fix WvW, specially at this point. The fact that PUGs are toxic and mean at times are _not_ a viable argument for guilds taking control for this game mode. Period. End of. Guilds are _not_ "the server", as you claim, they are _a part_ of the server, they are _in_ the server. Guilds are no more important than PUGs and everyone else. That is ALL that I have said. I really cannot make this any more clearer than that.

> @"Naxos.2503" said: > To be honest, we dont even know if they would keep the initial iteration they gave when they presented the project, if they actually did it. > It's gone to the point that Alliance coming soon for 2 years is not meme worthy, memes are meant to be funny. This is just sad. > > It would help guilds actually playing across servers together aaaaaand I think that's it ? You mention it in 3 that guilds will have too much power but honestly, they already Have all the power. It'll always be the same guilds getting in the same objectives and defending said objectives. It'll still be the same guilds leading kill trains. What might change is that it may -potentially- lead to newer guilds on the scene if it's easier for them to play together. > > All of this is purely hypothetical due to how little is known and honestly the 2 year (Isn't that closer to 3 now btw ?) has all but voided any possible hype players may have had on the matter. > > Edit : Yeeeeup... 3 years ... It is speculation from all us, myself included. I made this thread as a counter opinion since the current discussion is centered around alliances and the lack of delivery there of. Still, I base this speculation and assumption on prior evidence of what's happened in WvW in the past. As far as newer guilds go, it's a gamble. It's essentially betting the farm hoping that the rain comes. Newer players may or may not enjoy open-world pvp, and even so, do the player gains offset the player losses? And regarding my 3rd point, now that I think about it...you're right! There's really nothing stopping them now. So an alliance system wouldn't change much anyway.

> @"subversiontwo.7501" said: > > @"JTGuevara.9018" said: > > 1.) _It's not much different than server links_ -- Servers already get partially restructured every 2 months with server links. > You do not seem to see the importance of the finer print in the announcement. The important parts of Alliances is not the shuffling but rather what factors are taken into account when the shuffle occurs and what factors are taken into account to calculate when a world is full or not. That you can choose your friends and get shuffled with them and that your group of friends will have a priority for when people want to transfer to your world is very important as player groups move or quit when servers or maps get crowded and they get choked out of recruitment or their own content. > > > If anything, it will be _worse_. > There is no basis for that conclusion. > > > 2.)_Players and guilds won't change_ -- Try-hard players and guilds will still find a way to bandwagon and game the system. > You list that as some superficial negative thing and casually throw around popular terminology that you don't seem to understand (bandwagon). > > Alliances are meant to recruit. Guilds are meant to attempt to be competetive and we have a ladder for that reason so every group can be matched up for content at their own level, so they can have more fun without being put into situations where they get dominated as often. > > Under the existing system guilds transfer away from guildless players to open up their recruitment pool. The guildless players (who have no interest in joining the guilds or helping them out, they just want access to their content) transfer after them. The guildless players are the "bandwagon", not the guilds. > > You seem to be completely oblivious to that fact. The guilds do not want the bandwagon, it is something that follows them which they can't keep away. > > > 3.) _Guilds will have too much power_ -- Alliances will eventually consolidate into powerhouses limited only by the yet to be proposed alliance cap, dominating smaller ones either through victories, bandwagons, or both. > Again, that is meant to be. That is why we have a ladder. Some "servers" (alliances, worlds) are meant to be stronger than others. The ladder is there to make sure that the matchups have fitting content levels. One problem with the existing system is that the ladder does not match servers up very well. A strong server is meant to dominate a weak server so they can separate on the ladder and on their own match up versus respectively strong and weak servers. That is the intention of the entire system since 2012. > > The problems we have right now is that guilds do not have enough power over the content that the guild itself creates. Players who are not in the guild have equal or better access to the content that the guild produces. That is a **major problem** as it makes the players who create content stop. They stop either by quitting or by giving up (not producing content, not sharing content, trying to scare unwanted volume away). > > **Let's look at how things are now and some issues that come with that:** > > The content a guild and their commanders create and then possibly decide to share with players not in that guild by making their squad open is not content that all those other players are entitled to. That is also a **major misunderstanding** kept by players who post on this forum and are not commanders, roamers or members of guilds themselves. You feel entitled to that content: You take public tags for granted. You take the players who share their content through public tags for granted. ArenaNet takes those players for granted as they never prioritize them in whatever little attention this game mode gets. ArenaNet does very few things for WvW but equally troublesome is that very few things ArenaNet does for WvW has been done for guilds or commanders. Everytime something is done for commanders (like hidden tags for example) the entitled guildless mass cry and complain, like in this thread. > > This problem has only been getting **larger and larger** as the balance between players in guilds (content creators) and players without guilds who rely on public groups (content consumers) grows more and more distant. This is **more of a problem** than losses in total population because - in the total loss of population we have - there is relatively a larger loss of content producers than we have a loss of content consumers which means that tags have just become more and more scarce relative the population total. As a result, players have started to **transfer more and more** as time has gone on. The population totals does not create that situation, a larger disparity between tags and how many players want to follow those specific tags creates that situation. > > It isn't a problem if most players in guilds end up at the higher tiers of the ladder and most players who are not in guilds and take no part in helping out with producing tags and content end up at the lower end of the ladder. That is how it is supposed to be and players like the OP and their ilk have kept protesting things like this for years while the mode just bleeds guilds and tags, making sure there are less and less tags per player. They call others bandwagoners, but they are the wagon. > > Of course those players are going to protest the Alliance system and muddy the waters surrounding it, because it takes content that they are not producing from them, by stopping them from taking content from the players who produce it. It is easy to see when they are all "grrrr guilds" without aknowledging that the guilds are the tags and the vast majority of well-organized public tags you see are guilds who decide to share their content with the public. They are angry at that the tags that they want to follow does not want them to follow them. The tags wants to get away from them because they are not helpful and just takes them for granted. > > So, anytime you see someone go "grrr those bad bad guilds who transfer and are too powerful" you should go: Good, that means ArenaNet are actually doing something for the players who produce the vast majority of content in this game mode and that is the only way to breathe life back into it - to encourage players to go out and create content! > > Alliances are for the people who wants to play with friends, who wants to create guilds and who wants to tag up to produce content. They are the people who are for Alliances in the same way that they were the people who were for hidden tags. Tags are not public commodity even if they can be set to public access. ArenaNet needs to see and understand that, no matter how much some selfish majority of solo-public consumers wants to muddle that truth. > > The thing agree with the OP on is that I am far from sure that Alliances are comming anymore, despite Ray's somewhat recent reassurances. > > However, I strongly dislike these attempts at swaying opinion on the matter by creating noise and misunderstanding or misrepresenting what Alliances are. And you have succinctly made my point in why alliances should never occur, even as you strongly defend them. You see guilds as the primary drivers of WvW ('content creators'), while everyone is along for the ride('content consumers'). I oppose that statement. Everybody contributes in WvW: PUGs, roamers, militia/havoc groups, guilds. When guilds are not active or they retire for the night, who picks up the slack? That's right, PUGs, roamers and havoc groups. I'm sorry, but guilds are not special, they're a part of the system like everyone else. You speak as if guilds have not stacked servers forming de-facto alliances since launch, which they have. Guilds historically have also gamed the current system by mass transferring if they don't like this or that server or tier. This makes so-called "competition" ladder essentially meaningless, since guilds with resources and capital can just pack up and go at will like locusts leaving their host server a husk and shell of what it was. This has happened to previous servers and continues to this day. And yet, we as players should give these giant mega guilds more control over this game mode just merely because of they 'create content' with an alliance system? I'm sorry, no dice. And lastly, 'swaying opinion'?...As opposed to what? Spamming "alliances when" in every post? At least I actually have _something_ to say.

Warrior was pretty much always middle-of-the-road. The damage and sustainability are decent enough, but not the best. OP you are right, warriors have to think independently in what works for them and what doesn't. I do the same. The thing is, you have to. Warrior does not excel in anything that in which other professions cannot provide in greater numbers. In a sense, it's a _true_ "jack of all trades" class. Yes, I know engineers exist, but they easily surpass warrior in mobility and support. Holos also dish more straight damage. Guardians, revs, necros surpass us in conditions. Obviously, tempest, druid, FB pass us in healing as they should! The only possible exception is CC. A warrior SB wielding say hammer, dagger or mace along with physicals is something unique. Even then, you have to be skilled enough to wield that big lumbering molasses known as warrior hammer! However, the big February update threw that possibility out the window -- warrior physicals and its general damage just got gutted. Also, the thing with warrior is -- it's pretty straight-forward. Warriors don't have stealth or teleports. Any experienced player knows and sees right in front of them what warrior is going to dish out at them. This forces us warriors to be more creative and strategic in how we fight. Positioning matters, cooldowns matter, every little thing matters. Warriors also require a lot of time and investment in order to become skilled and get anything out of it. Again, you're a jack of all trades! You don't have the absolute best tools, so you need to practice and make do with the tools you do have.